Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Scientists are generally trusted (Score 1) 255

But that is counter balanced by owing it to their editors and share holders to skip those few minutes and facts to publish an article that will catch more readers eyes.

They can still do that, while reporting accurately. They just need to include a disclaimer in the article that there was no peer review, and it likely total nonsense. Responsible publications have articles about unconfirmed preliminary research all the time, they are just careful to label it as such.

Guess I needed a sarcasm sign with your response and a down vote too. What happened to everyone's sense of humor?

Comment: Climate models tell less than you think (Score 1) 129

There is a link to climate change. The solution to the ozone problem is a proof that we can do it.
Now I am not saying that waning off from CO2 dumping is going to be as relatively easy as CFCs, but it is at least as important.

Sulphur is a similar proof that global cooperation can fix damage done to our atmosphere.

As important by what metric? Yes, we have a very good instrumental record of warming global temperature for nearly a century. Yes, we have a record about half as long showing CO2 concentrations rising. Yes, we have trivial physics to show that CO2 absolutely traps radiation and contributes to warming. Yes, we know that our actions have been contributing CO2 to the atmosphere over those time frames. Please point me to more sources, but this is about the extent of the very strongly agreed items on climate change. Further facts all start deriving from climate models, or statistically reconstructed models of proxy data. How do we quantitatively define the importance of reducing our CO2 emissions from this?

We need to know the cost we will bear from continuing temperature changes if we carry on our merry way. We need to know the reduction of those costs if we take a certain set of actions today or in the near future. We then can compare the costs of those actions today against the saved costs in the future and make an informed decision.

I hate to be that guy, but our climate models today are NOT sufficient for assessing this. Plenty of the guys working on the models will call me out, and maybe you should listen to them instead of me because they are after all the experts and know their work and field better than I. Scientifically speaking though, please also look at the facts I base my statement upon. The IPCC states the following information on climate models in general:
-Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state.
-The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
-Model tuning directly influences the evaluation of climate models, as the quantities that are tuned cannot be used in model evaluation.

Now, if you read those points something comes out and screams problem doesn't it? The heart and soul of all climate change is the increase or decrease of energy at the Top Of Atmosphere. The climate models nearly universally modify cloud effects to get their hindcasting of the energy at TOA correct. If they don't do this tuning, the models drift to an unrealistic state. The quantities that are tuned also should NOT be used in evaluation of the models. So TOA energy imbalance is one of the things that practically by DEFINITION the models are not meant to be able to be evaluated upon, let alone predictive for.

Let me humbly suggest that models that still aren't up to projecting TOA energy aren't exactly cut out for long term predictions of CO2 or any other impacts on TOA energy, which is THE centrally component of the greenhouse effect. The models are tackling problems like what happens to temperature and precipitation patterns under certain changes to TOA energy, but that's not the problem we are most interested in when assessing what level of energy changes CO2 is causing for us.

If I'm wrong or insane anywhere please, please correct me and point me in a good direction for some reasons I'm off base here. I'm a Comp Sci grad so I get computer modelling and the above concerns I've outlined seem terribly fundamental and after searching for a long time I can't find anywhere that the central concern I've outlined is meaningfully addressed.

Comment: Re:Scientists are generally trusted (Score 0) 255

Here's the trick: You and I know this, but the average schlub out there does not.

Science journalists should be better than "average schlubs". They owe it to their readers to do at least a few minutes of fact checking before publishing.

But that is counter balanced by owing it to their editors and share holders to skip those few minutes and facts to publish an article that will catch more readers eyes.

Comment: Re:String Theory\0 (Score 1) 148

I'm wondering why all the heavy particles that were found with the colliders, were not observed during all the nuclear tests that were done during the 30 or years or so from 1945 till 1975.

I know nothing of particle physics, but I thought it was that the particles are very short lived?

Comment: Re:Early recognition of greatness (Score 2) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49777725) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Citation please.

Not because I'm trying to be contrary or disbelieve you, but because I'm genuinely interested in cases where legitimate, well-conducted studies showed something established to be false and which were buried because of the potential ramifications.

I'm sure it's happened, but it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory, particularly in the absence of an example or two.

Not exactly like the parent, but an example of the established knowledge refusing to acknowledge the data in front of it's face was experienced by Mary Schweitzer. In 1993 on a dig she was on a team that had to break a T-Rex bone open to transport it. Upon doing this she found some kind of reddish material and upon looking closer at it determined it was organic. The explanation that she had actually found some form of remaining soft tissue from a dinosaur was more or less dismissed out of hand because it's impossible for that to have been preserved that long. She was repeatedly rebuffed from calling it soft-tissue until the condition of proving HOW it was preserved could be demonstrated...

Eventually in 2000 another T-Rex bone was broken open and duplicated her findings. Since then proteins sequences have even been able to be pulled and line up similarly to birds.

The fact almost nobody has heard of her is a bit perplexing given the single most major obstacle to Jurassic Park in real life was turned on it's head by her discovery.

Comment: Re:Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49777593) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Well since www.realclimate.org is an activist website we could assume that they would disagree with anybody that would criticize Mann's work. The entire purpose of that website is to provide backup arguments to any and all climate change denier deniers.

If you want some middle of the road coverage of Mann try judithcurry.com.

There is a much stronger reason to expect the RealClimate blog to take Mann's side, and that is because Mann founded RealClimate in the first place... Invoking the site as external support in Mann's defence is amusing.

Comment: Re: Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49776725) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Have you checked if anybody of any credibility published in that journal? I guess not.

Well, The Annals of Applied Statistics is the applied statistics journal of the Institute of Mathematical Studies which was founded in 1935 and currently has upwards of 4000 members. The Annals of Applied Statistics's is currently edited by Stephen Fienberg. If you'd care to be more specific with why you randomly believe the journal itself lacks all credibility aside from your personal disagreement with an article within it please do tell.

Comment: Re:Tighten up peer review especially STATISTICS (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49775835) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Much of the problem comes from studies being published whose data is not robust because the sample size is too small to be meaningfully significant. This needs to be headlined in the abstract if it is published at all; the best magazines should refuse anything without a decent sample size, whilst the ones further down the food chain should have statisticans on hand to ask hard questions.

Discovering an apparent effect should result in more research - not a rush to believe...

There are cases though where sample size is an inherent obstacle. Most popularly climate change is trying to study and predict impacts of processes that act over centuries and millenia, and our directly sampled data for temperature barely covers 1 century. Our direct data for CO2 concentrations covers less time than that. Our direct data for the global energy imbalance is even shorter than both. How to properly qualify and quantify the uncertainty with inherent limitations like this is a major challenge to studying serious matters. Plenty of medical research faces the same problem. How do you test a new Ebola vaccine before the next outbreak?

Comment: Re:Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49775725) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

I don't suppose you even looked at the author of the article you linked?

Yes I have. I don't suppose you've even looked at the contents ?

I did in fact, I even suffered through Mann's own angry blog post. Did you read just his blog post, or did you read the actual published discussion by the authors and publishers as well? If you did, it seems pretty clear the complaints against McShane and Wyner don't substantially refute any of their main criticisms. Might want to read the journals and discussion and not just Mann's own editorializing on his blog.

ALL his methods systematically underestimate recent warming.

That has been well known for a long time.

If you notice the trend, of Manns peers and Mann himself is to repeatedly republishing more and more moderated versions of his original extreme results as his original work is put in check.

The results from the 2013 PAGES 2k Consortium research still look very much the same as the original Mann graph.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

Funny, they don't look anything like Mann's original graph to me. If you view the full article the 30 yea weight means since 1900 are matched for a large portion of the time from 1AD through 1000AD.

Comment: Re:Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49775487) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

"Your post hurts Michael Mann's feelings..."

There's no need to mod it down. Mann will sue your ass off, an innovation he has personally added to the scientific method.

Who is Michael Mann??

(No, I didn't bother to Google it before writing this post...So without doing that, I would have to accept that there was a person actually called 'Michael Mann' who is: a) know by others and b) known for suing...which is not what I was taught in 'Research Writing' (verify information you are given by others and write so that others can verify (and/or reproduce) the information you present.))

He's the guy famous/infamous for the 'Hockey Stick' graph. He's also one of the main authors on the realclimate.org blog.

Comment: Re:Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49775267) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

His whole hockey stick temperature reconstruction has been thoroughly rebuked by The Annals of Applied Statistics [projecteuclid.org]

Of course, others disagree with that sentiment. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
I don't suppose you even looked at the author of the article you linked? I don't doubt that Mann himself disagreed with the disassembly of his paper, I'm not sure linking to a blog post by him refutes the published criticism of his misuse of statistical methods by statisticians.

And of course, after the original Mann hockeystick paper, a few dozen more studies have been done that have agreed with his graph.

If by 'verified' you mean results that used similar statistical methods on different datasets. Also, as newer statistical methods have been adopted the trend has changed more and more. Even Manns own latest work notes that the method he has most confidence in, EIV, has the highest historical reconstructed temperature yet. Mann also notes in his recent paper that when calibrating his setup against the years 1900-1950 and verifying the reconstruction after 1950, ALL his methods systematically underestimate recent warming. If you notice the trend, of Manns peers and Mann himself is to repeatedly republishing more and more moderated versions of his original extreme results as his original work is put in check.

Comment: Re:Maybe science went off the rails... (Score 1) 417

by BCGlorfindel (#49774843) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Climate science is probably the most scrutinized field of science right now. And despite people saying the whole field is a crock, nothing of substance is found wrong.

Obviously the whole thing isn't a crock, there is just a lot of noise in the field now largely owing to it being such a hot topic and gold mine for grants and publicity. The basics like the instrumental record warming for a century, CO2 measurements increasing for a century and the fact CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect are all thoroughly solid. That doesn't mean a horde of soft science hasn't been piled on speculating about the social impacts of potential speculative future changes brought on by this all good or might mean getting published too, often with not much more underpinning scientific work than something by Asimov.

Even some of the harder science is problematic, and yes in particular that includes Mann's work. His whole hockey stick temperature reconstruction has been thoroughly rebuked by The Annals of Applied Statistics. The two most blatant criticisms being failing to provide any and later accurate error margins, and the blatant attachment of disparate datasets to create a desired impression by appending the instrumental record onto his reconstructed temperature. The lack of error bars and the fact the reconstruction was calibrated to that instrumental data the close fit the instrumental gives the false impression of much greater accuracy than is present.

Mann is thin skinned because his early work was thin, bordering on deliberate dishonesty, or more generously, ignorance of proper statistical practices and methods.

Comment: Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score 1) 268

You know, reading through that stuff, I see that models are doing pretty well. There is a discussion of the slowdown of observed warming, including speculation on where the extra energy could be. Overall, it looks like a good scientific discussion, with confidence levels and admissions of anomalies, and it comes out concluding that models have improved since 1990.

I agree there is lots of good science within the models. I still question the quality and confidence levels in them. The same IPCC link will also note that models in their set nearly universally are hand tuned to match the known historic record of TOA energy imbalance. That is the most important measure if climate change, energy change at top of atmo is corrected in the hind casts by hand to be correct. More over, the most common parameter used to tune that energy imbalance is cloud effects. If you look again at the discussion of how and why models missed the lowered trend after 98 one of the major suspects is inaccurate natural forcing a, like clouds, impacting the net forcings, AKA TOA imbalance. Basically the hand tuned parts work a lot better when we know what to tune them to than when moving into an uncertain future.

The models still cover the very challenging questions of how climate responds to increased incoming energy. For long term projections though the energy balance dominates and getting it right or wrong is greater than the difference between the many emission scenarios the IPCC uses. Exactly like it dominates the long term historical trends were researchers routinely tune the models until they match the known historic imbalances. Without a model that can predict energy imbalances I lack confidence in its long term reliability, much like the researchers themselves already know when making longer term hindcasts.

Comment: Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score 1) 268

Here are several posts at RealClimate on the subject of whether warming has paused or not:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

There are indications that the PDO is switching to a warm phase that generally favors El Ninos. If that happens temperatures may well move above climate model projections in a few years. It's all a part of the noise of natural variability. As I said before less than about 30 years is too short a time period to make judgements about the temperature trends.

You want to link a journal over a blog please? There is no argument or discussion about the matter. The instrumental temperature record as recorded in the HADCRUT data set used in virtually every climate modelling experiment has a higher linear warming rate from 1950-2012 than from 1998-2012. There is no debate on the matter, that's simply a fact. Any source denying this is very simply being dishonest.

That said, as I pointed out before several times, the energy imbalance at TOA is where the actual greenhouse effect is going on. For pretty near the duration of satellite records there we have seen a consistent imbalance with more energy coming in than going out annually. That imbalance is also agreed to have had no annual trend since 2000 or longer. That means the planet's been gaining energy at the same rate before and after 98 and only temperature has been fluctuating rates. The question of importance is what is the real temp response to that increasing temperature? The linear rate from 1950-2012 or from 1950-1998? That's an active area of study and simply saying don't tLk about it, or it isn't important is just dishonest, as I've repeated a couple times now. The only guys I've seen really adamant about rejecting that are alarmists that want to claim greater than linear warming and catastrophe are near, since the data refutes them they reject or deny it.

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Working...